Do audiences prefer Arc-less villains in movies?

A lot of times when you ask people who they thought the best movie villains are, usually the choices that come up are Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs version), The Joker (The Dark Knight version), Hans Gruber, HAL-9000, T-1000, etc.

But those are villains that do not go through character arcs and learn lessons and grow as the story goes along, and since Arc-less villains are often picked, I wonder if perhaps audiences prefer them more?

Who are some arc villains in your opinion?

Niel McCauley (Heat, 1995)
Malamadre (Cell 211, 2009)
Lee Woo-Jin (Oldboy, 2003)
Francis Dollarhyde (Red Dragon, 2003)

That's all I could think of right now.

Good question. I think it has to do with whether or not it adds to or detracts from making the villain menacing. Giving HAL-9000 an arc would have been weird, it's a robot. It also makes it creepier that we don't know that much about it before it goes full-on evil, whether this robot is good or not.

Norman Bates however is a really classic villain with an arc. He does evil things, but with torturous contempt for his mother and himself. He's not a villain just to be a villain. He's complex, and very interesting.

I wouldn't say I prefer or don't prefer a villain with an arc. But if there is an arc, it has to be well-written. If the arc is silly or doesn't make sense, it's better not to have one.

Oh okay, some robot characters have arcs such as the Terminator in T2, or the main character in A.I., only in HAL's case, it would be a villain having an arc, if he did have one.

I didn't think of Norman Bates having an arc, since at the end of the first Psycho movie, he is still the same person, or so it seems... unless we are counting his arc over the course of Psycho II and III.

Darth Vader has an arc.

Sauron from Lord of the Rings has an orc.

Lmao!!!!

I think we may be confusing characters with personal motivations (beyond just being evil or greedy or whatever) with characters whose personal development is actually revealed through the story. I think many people appreciate a villain they can relate to on some level. I don't know if every movie calls for it. Sometimes a villain who is just bad is refreshing.

Russell Crowe's Noah definitely had an ark.

Wait. But Noah was the gooooooohhhh!!!! Bwahaha!!!

I don't think audiences have any specific thought-out preference. The reason they give those examples of villains is due to how famous they are.

I think some of the villains listed in OP are just fun crazy characters that we can sort of get behind in a weird, vicarious way. I don't necessarily need the bad guy to grow. I mean, would they still really be villainous if they grow from it? They're there to provide conflict. The more creative at that venture they are, the happier I am in general with their efforts. Arc is added flavor, but if the steak was cooked right to begin with I don't need sauce.

Sometimes I find it more interesting to see good characters forced to make a decision against their principles or ethics that, in and of itself, could be interpreted as villainous by others out of context.

Just a quick, shallow reply.

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

Most people just remember villains for being intimidating, which is helped by being inhuman. There do exist good human villains with arcs, but there is a reason why arcless villains are so popular.